Introduction – The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.

Introduction – The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the ‘War on Terror’. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people — civilians — in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had two occupations, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principle alternative hypothesis — controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics — had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and published in a chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.

The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for corrections (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers’ total destruction.

As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationale for failing to test. Those rationale — or rationalizations — summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics “would not necessarily have been conclusive”. That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn’t rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition — particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings’ destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse.

The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics — ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives — in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the response of official investigations — particular NIST’s — to that evidence.

Introduction – Most science-based investigators of the events of 9/11/2001 are reluctant to develop detailed hypotheses or conjectures for obvious reasons: to speculate about unknown events in a criminal conspiracy is to invite the label of “conspiracy theorist” with its weight of discrediting associations, unless, of course, one is parroting the speculations of the officially endorsed account.

Never mind that NIST explains WTC7’s destruction as the first-ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building with the refreshingly novel failure mechanism — supported by no physical evidence whatsoever — that thermally induced expansion of a huge beam caused it to break loose of its connections and crash down, taking the rest of the skyscraper with it. It is the skeptics of this fairy tale that New York Times reporter Eric Lipton calls conspiracy theorists.1

The chief apologists for the official story seem to want it both ways. On the one hand, they stigmatize anyone who questions the official version of events as a “conspiracy theorist”. On the other, they fault the same intellectual dissidents for not articulating a detailed theory of the crime, as Ryan Mackey does here. How interesting that the conspiracy theorist label remains the first line of defense against the consideration of alternative hypotheses, while the main arguments against controlled demolition of the Twin Towers appeal to alleged difficulties in implementation — arguments that can only be answered through postulating hypothetical scenarios.

Here, then, is such a scenario — in much more detail than suggestions I have previously made to answer frequently asked questions — that I hope will be useful to other investigators working to solve the horrific crime of ‘9/11′.